<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR>Hi.<BR>Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org <BR>Sun Aug 9 07:26:13 CEST 2009 <BR>
> Now that we have access to the full RFC 4646bis Registry, with its ISO > 639-3-based subtags, it's probably a good time to go back and review the > various proposals that have been discussed, but put on hold until the > new Registry took effect.<BR>
> This would include at least the following proposals:<BR>> 1. Adding variant subtag 'erzgeb' for Erzgebirgisch, originally with a<BR>> Prefix of "de" or "gem" or "sxu", or most recently "vmf"<BR>
Which prefixes does Thomas want now for 'erzgeb,' [sxu], or [vmf], or both? (in the last case, is this then a sub-branch of two dialects, which I thought it was not, but I'm not a person who thinks languages descend in linear fashon from parents as the trees suggest, anyway.) <A href="http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=1204-16http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=sxu">http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=1204-16http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=sxu</A> Ethnologue has its family as East Middle German (like that of [sxu]):http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=sxuAlso, why is the added date for [vmf] (and other new subtags) appear as:Added: 2029-09-09<BR>???(I'm sorry I am new at this; it does not look right but I am sure it is me.)<BR>
> depending on <BR>> when the proposal was discussed. Proposed by Thomas Goldammer in <BR>
> January 2008 and brought up several times since then.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR><BR></body>
</html>